MICHAEL R. VITALE and NANCY R.

ROMANCE

USING IN-DEPTH SCIENCE INSTRUCTION TO ACCELERATE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AND READING
COMPREHENSION IN GRADES 1 – 2
Received: 14 June 2011; Accepted: 21 November 2011

ABSTRACT. This study focused on accelerating development of science knowledge and

understanding at the primary level (grades 1 – 2) as a means for enhancing reading
comprehension (i.e. early literacy). An adaptation of a grade 3 – 5 cognitive-science-
based, instructional model (Science IDEAS) that integrated science with reading and
writing, this year-long study implemented daily 45-min instructional periods emphasizing
in-depth, cumulative learning of science core-concept “clusters” while integrating science
and literacy in a manner that provided teachers with a thematic focus for all aspects of
instruction. Results (a) confirmed the feasibility of implementing the integrated, in-depth
science model at the primary level and (b) showed that experimental students obtained
significantly higher achievement on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Science and Reading tests
than comparable controls. Discussed are curricular policy implications for increasing the
instructional time for content-area instruction at the primary level.

KEY WORDS: integrated science and reading, primary science instruction, reform

The current status of science and reading education in American schools

as reflected in numerous national and international reports continues to
present considerable challenges to researchers and practitioners alike.
Unfortunately, even after 20 years of educational reform, many of the
recommendations from key publications such as the 1989 Science for All
Americans by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS, 1994), the 1996 National Research Council’s (NRC, 1996)
National Science Education Standards, the 2007 National Research
Council’s Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching in Grades
K – 8 (Duschl, Schweingruber & Shouse, 2007), and the 2000 RAND
Report Reading for Understanding (Snow, 2002) have had little impact
on student performance as evidenced by large-scale assessments. Specifi-
cally, student achievement trends in both science and reading continue to
decline from elementary through high school (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez &
Kennedy, 2003, Mullis, Martin & Kennedy, 2007; Schmidt, McKnight,
Cogan, Jakwerth & Houang, 1999; Schmidt, McKnight, Houang, Wang,
Wiley & Cogan, 2001; NCES, 2002, 2010). Of particular significance is the
additional issue of how meaningful content-area learning from text remains

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2012) 10: 457Y 472
# National Science Council, Taiwan 2011
458 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

as a significant barrier (e.g. AFT, 1997; Donahue, Voekl, Campbell &

Mazzeo, 1999; Duke, 2010; Feldman, 2000; Snow, 2002) for low
socioeconomic status students who depend on school to learn.
Addressing these issues developmentally, this study focused on
accelerating science learning at the primary level (grades 1 – 2) as a
means for enhancing reading comprehension. In using a model that
integrates science and reading instruction, the intent was to strengthen an
argument for the importance of the role of in-depth science instruction in
grades 1 – 2 as the means to prepare students for future success in grade 3
and beyond. In adapting a cognitive-science-based instructional model,
Science IDEAS, previously shown to accelerate science and reading
achievement in grades 3 – 5 (e.g. Romance & Vitale, 1992, 2001, 2011;
Vitale & Romance, 2006), this study addressed a recognized need to
develop student science understanding and reading comprehension
proficiency at the primary levels (see Duke, 2010; French, 2004; Gelman
& Brenneman, 2004; Krajcik & Sutherland, 2010; Pearson, Moje &
Greenleaf, 2010; Webb, 2010; Yore, Hand, Goldman, Hildebrand,
Osborne, Treagust & Wallace, 2004) in a manner that would raise
achievement expectations for primary grade students.
The present year-long study extended a previous 8-week study (Vitale
& Romance, 2007b) which found significant achievement growth in Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Science in grade 2, but not in
grade 1. Given the mixed results of the 8-week study, the primary
objective of this study was to investigate the effects of implementing the
integrated instructional model for a full school year on student
achievement in science and reading in grades 1 – 2. Overall, the goal of
the year-long study was to advance knowledge regarding the bridging of
research and practice by applying a broad set of interdisciplinary research
findings (e.g. Romance & Vitale, in press) to systemic issues regarding the
interdependence of meaningful learning of science and the development of
reading comprehension proficiency at the primary levels.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND LITERACY

Cognitive Science Foundations of the Original Science IDEAS Intervention

The research foundations of the original grade 3 – 5 Science IDEAS
intervention consisted of consensus findings from cognitive science and
related disciplines (e.g. instructional design) that, in turn, were directly
applicable to the grade 1 – 2 Science IDEAS adaptation used in the
present study (Romance & Vitale, in press; Vitale & Romance, 2006). As
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 459

a knowledge-based instructional model, Science IDEAS requires (a) the

explicit representation of the knowledge to be taught and learned in the
form of core concepts and concept relationships and (b) subsequent
linkage of all instructional methods and learning activities chosen by
teachers to the same core concept framework.
In implementing the model, teachers select and use a wide variety of
inquiry-oriented, hands-on activities in which reading and writing are
linked in order to develop and expand student in-depth knowledge and
understanding of the science concepts being learned. This instructional
framework enables teachers to adopt a cumulative inquiry style that (a)
focuses on what is being learned over a multi-day sequence of different
learning activities that build cumulative student conceptual knowledge
and understanding and (b) guides students to relate what they have
learned as elaborations of the core concepts taught.
Central to the foundations of the Science IDEAS model is a report by the
National Research Council, How People Learn (Bransford, Brown &
Cocking, 2000). As an emerging research trend, Bransford et al. stressed the
development and access of core concepts and concept relationships as critical
elements in the development of any form of expertise. In a parallel fashion,
the Science IDEAS model emphasizes the core concepts that reflect the logical
structure of the discipline as an instructional architecture for building student
meaningful learning as a form of age-appropriate curricular expertise (see also
French, 2004). A number of other articles (Beane, 1995; Hirsch, 2001, 2006;
Schmidt, McKnight, Cogan, Jakwerth & Houang, 1999; Schmidt, McKnight,
Houang, Wang, Wiley & Cogan, 2001) have discussed curricular issues and
findings that support curriculum interventions represented by knowledge-
based instructional approaches such as that used in the present study.

Other Research Relevant to In-Depth Science Instruction

and Comprehension
The National Reading Panel (2000, p.464) recognized the original grade
3 – 5 Science IDEAS study (Romance & Vitale, 1992) as one of the few
scientifically based research studies demonstrating combined student
achievement in science and reading comprehension. Romance & Vitale
(2001) replicated and extended their initial study over an additional 3-year
period and obtained similar achievement outcomes in science and
reading. In subsequent years, Romance & Vitale (2011) reported cross-
sectional effects on science and reading in grades 3 – 5 and transfer of
effects from grades 3 – 5 to grades 6 – 8. In related work, Klentschy &
Molina-De La Torre (2004) demonstrated how a multi-year science-
460 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

focused instructional program in grades K – 5 positively impacted student

achievement as measured by the California Reading Test. Guthrie &
Ozgungor (2002) and Guthrie, Wigfield & Perencevich (2004) showed
that the use of content-oriented reading materials at the upper elementary
levels significantly affected reading proficiency and student motivation
(see also Armbruster & Osborn, 2001), and Block & Pressley (2002)
reported that many of the strategies encompassed in the original Science
IDEAS model and the present grade 1 – 2 adaptation (e.g. relating prior
knowledge, imagery, questioning, and summarization) were effective in
improving reading comprehension (see also Palincsar & Magnusson, 2001).

Research Trends Recognizing the Importance of Informational Text

in Primary Grades
The present grade 1 – 2 intervention focused on developing meaningful
knowledge in science, in part, by emphasizing informational text (Palmer
& Stewart, 2003) for developing reading comprehension proficiency at
the primary level (for related reviews see also Gould, Weeks & Evans,
2003; Holliday, 2004; Klentschy & Molina-De La Torre, 2004; Ogle &
Blachowicz, 2002). Pearson & Duke (2002) noted that the terms “reading
comprehension instruction” and “primary grades” seldom appear together.
Further, they reported that teachers erroneously believed comprehension
instruction must wait until students develop decoding proficiency. In
doing so, Pearson and Duke listed and refuted major unsupported
beliefs that serve as barriers to the use of informational text at the primary
grades. Duke and others (e.g. Duke, 2000, 2010; Duke, Bennett-Armistead
& Roberts, 2003; Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996) found that primary
students have minimal opportunities for learning that involves meaningful
comprehension, despite extensive research on how such instruction should
(and should not) be pursued (see Hirsch, 2001, 2003; Jones, Jones, Hardin,
Chapman, Yarbrough & Davis, 1999; Klentschy & Molina-De La Torre,
2004; Pretti-Frontczak, 2003; Walsh, 2003).

Research Trends Recognizing the Importance of Science Instruction

in Primary Grades
Emphasized in this study is how science knowledge provides a context
within which primary students experience cumulative meaningful
learning in a fashion that enhances their capacity for comprehension.
French (2004) reported the feasibility of a curricular approach in which
science experiences resulted in early literacy development as well as
science learning. Gelman & Brenneman (2004) showed how a preschool
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 461

science program including guided hands-on activities served as a

framework for instruction that supported the development of domain-
specific knowledge in young children. In working with 3 to 6 year olds,
Smith (2001) described how active involvement of young children in
science learning is naturally motivating (see also Conezio & French,
2002) if topics are approached with sufficient depth and time, a position
consistent with “National Science Education Standards” (see Rakow &
Bell, 1998). Gould et al., (2003) described an approach for early science
instruction with gifted students, Tytler & Peterson (2001) summarized the
meaningful changes in 5-year-old’s explanations of evaporation as a result of
extended in-depth science instruction, Jones & Courtney (2002) addressed
the processes of curricular planning and assessment in early science learning,
Armga, Dillon, Jamsek, Morgan, Peyton & Speranza, (2002) and Colker
(2002) suggested the guidelines for teaching science in early childhood
settings, and Lee, Lostoski, & Williams (2000) described the benefits of
schoolwide thematically oriented science instruction.

METHOD

Participants
The grade 1 – 2 study was implemented in two elementary schools
representative of the student diversity (African-American 29%, Hispanic
19%, other non-White 5%, free lunch 40%) in a large (185,000 students)
school district in southeastern Florida. Students in two demographically
similar schools served as controls. Table 1 summarizes the demographic
characteristics of the participating students by school.

TABLE 1
Participant numbers (teachers, students) and school demographic characteristics

N of N of % % % African- % %
School teachers students Minority White American Hispanic Other

Science IDEAS A 6 101 61 30 41 20 9

B 5 79 69 21 17 52 10
Controls C 6 104 78 16 41 37 6
D 5 79 80 15 13 67 5

For demographic purposes, “Minority” category consisted of African-American and Hispanic

students. The “Other” category consisted of students of all other ethnicities, including multi-ethnic
students
462 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

Instrumentation
The nationally normed ITBS Reading Comprehension and Science
subtests (level 7 for grade 1, level 8 for grade 2) were administered by
classroom teachers under supervision of the researchers as measures of
student achievement during the last 2 weeks of the school year. The ITBS
is a nationally normed, group-administered achievement test battery that
is used by many US schools across grades 1 through 10. The design of
the test and the test-norming procedure provide a strong and consistent
linkage between versions for different grade levels.

Experimental Intervention
The study was implemented over the school year during which 45-min
lessons taught each school day emphasized the core-concept “clusters.” In
grade 1, the concept clusters encompassed life, Earth, and physical
science within an inquiry-oriented instructional framework. Key topic
clusters included Using your senses, Measuring tools, Phases of matter
(solids, liquids, gases), Forms of energy, Energy transfer, Pushes and
pulls, Types of forces, Simple machines, Plants, and Animals. In grade 2,
the concept clusters were Using your senses, Measuring tools, States of
matter, Physical changes, Forms of energy, Heat energy, Energy transfer,
Pushes and pulls, Simple machines, and Living things and the
environment.
Unlike the grade 3 – 5 Science IDEAS model which actually replaces
traditional reading/language arts instruction, the daily 45-min science
instructional blocks in grades 1 – 2 did not replace but rather
complemented existing reading/language arts instruction. In planning
their daily lessons, teachers relied upon the core clusters as the curricular
framework for selecting and sequencing all the science concepts being
taught. In effect, the activities and lessons always built upon the previous
science concepts learned thus affording students’ opportunities to build
cumulative knowledge across a series of lessons. Classroom instruction
focused on large and small groups of students actively exploring their
world while also helping them develop skills that are important
components of the scientific process (e.g. observing, measuring). In
addition, teachers used the integration of reading and writing as a way to
enhance the science concepts being taught. For example, teachers used
“read-alouds” and group discussions as a means to guide student
understanding of age-appropriate science materials. The integration of
both reading and writing complemented what students were learning
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 463

through the hands-on activities as well as supporting simple concept

mapping and journaling. Learning centers (e.g. additional activities and
rich print-based materials) provided another avenue to support student
understanding of the underlying concepts. In grade 2, the instructional
activities included all of the grade 1 activities but placed an increased
emphasis on teacher-guided student reading and more in-depth compre-
hension of science materials. In grade 2, concept mapping was used to
represent conceptual knowledge learned, and writing (or drawing) was
used to communicate what was being learned. In comparison to grades
1 – 2 experimental classrooms, teachers in demographically comparable
control schools followed the regular District science program. However,
all of the curricular materials used were purchased by the experimental
and control schools following District guidelines for “age-appropriate”
science and reading materials. Both experimental and control schools
implemented the district-adopted, basal-oriented Reading/Language Arts
program.

Teacher Professional Development and Implementation Support

for the Grade 1 – 2 Intervention
The teacher professional development modules and support strategies
used were developed and validated in the previous 8-week study
(Vitale & Romance, 2007b). Prior to the start of the school year,
participating teachers completed a 2-day professional development
“start-up” module. Subsequently, teachers participated in 2.5 additional
days of follow-up training. The primary focus of project professional
development was on (a) insuring teachers had a sound understanding
of the science concepts they were to teach (including proficiency on
age-appropriate hands-on activities) and (b) providing assistance in
teacher curriculum/lesson planning that focused on the science concepts
within the “core clusters” to be taught. Because both experimental and
control schools were implementing the grade 3 – 5 Science IDEAS
model, grades 1 – 2 teachers in all schools were able to gain mentor
support from more experienced science teachers as well as from the
researchers.

Design, Analysis, Data Sources, and Procedure

The four schools participating in the study were selected from a larger
group of elementary schools implementing Science IDEAS in grades
3 – 5 because they had the most similar patterns of student demographics
464 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

(see Table 1). In turn, the treatment and control conditions were assigned
randomly to each of two schools, respectively. In addition, the fact that
both the experimental and control schools were implementing the Science
IDEAS model in grades 3 – 5 served as a control for possible differential
school science teaching support for the grades 1 – 2 teachers within their
schools.
The overall design “framework” of the study consisted of a 2×2
factorial design (Treatment, Grade) with two outcome measures (ITBS
Reading, ITBS Science). As shown in Table 1, a total 11 experimental
(grade 1: N = 5, grade 2: N = 6) and 11 control classrooms (grade 1:
N = 5, grade 2: N = 6) participated in the study. Selected student
demographic variables (Gender, Ethnicity) served as covariates. After
exploratory OLS linear models analyses, separate two-level multi-level
analyses were conducted on each ITBS measure (Reading, Science) using
HLM 6. In the HLM analyses, Treatment and Grade were assigned to
level 2 (teacher/classroom level) and student demographic characteristics
(Gender, Ethnicity—coded as White vs. non-White and as Black vs.
Hispanic) were assigned to level 1 (student level). Student title 1 status
was not included in the analyses because title 1 status was highly
correlated with ethnicity.

Monitoring of Intervention Fidelity

Project staff informally monitored all participating classrooms on a
regular/continuing basis. Implementation/fidelity forms adapted from the
grade 3 – 5 Science IDEAS model were used as monitoring guides (e.g.
classroom displays, teacher use of Science IDEAS elements/activities,
active student engagement in learning). The fidelity monitoring process
also provided the project staff with a basis for evaluating teacher
implementation needs and identifying any needed follow-up support.

RESULTS

Clinical Assessment of Implementation Fidelity

Assessment of implementation fidelity involved a variety of informal
observations leading to clinical judgments. Primarily, these consisted of
(a) regular informal visits to grades 1 – 2 classrooms by research staff and
(b) status reports and trouble-shooting requests conducted through
professional development and follow-up teacher support provided by
project staff. In general, grades 1 – 2 teachers were judged as effective in
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 465

implementing the grade 1 – 2 Science IDEAS model throughout the

duration of the study.

Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Schools

Table 2 summarizes the mean grade-equivalent performance in the
treatment and control schools by the academic outcome measures by
grade.

Student Performance Outcomes

Table 3 summarizes the results of the HLM analysis for ITBS Science and
Table 4 for ITBS Reading. As these tables show, the effects of the
Treatment/Intervention were statistically significant in favor of the grade
1 – 2 experimental Science IDEAS classrooms for both ITBS Science and
Reading. Grade was also significant for both ITBS outcomes, with grade
2 students performing higher than those in grade 1. Because preliminary
HLM analyses showed no interactions involving Treatment with Grade,
Gender, or Ethnicity, these interactions were omitted from the final HLM
analysis models for both Science and Reading.
For ITBS Science, Gender was not significant, but both Ethnicity
contrasts were significant, with Whites scoring higher than non-Whites
and Hispanics higher than Blacks. For ITBS Reading, Gender was

TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics of academic outcome measures by grade and school

ITBS Sciencea ITBS Readingb

Grade/treatment group School N M SD N M SD

Grade 1
Science IDEAS A 43 1.3 0.10 52 2.5 0.62
B 34 1.4 0.15 32 2.5 0.35
Control C 50 1.1 0.22 48 2.2 0.76
D 31 1.2 0.18 29 2.2 0.45
Grade 2
Science IDEAS A 49 2.1 0.22 48 3.7 1.2
B 45 2.3 0.29 47 3.4 1.0
Control C 54 1.9 0.27 52 2.4 0.91
D 48 2.1 0.35 43 2.9 0.71
a
ITBS Science mean grade-equivalents (unadjusted)
b
ITBS Reading mean grade-equivalents (unadjusted)
466 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

TABLE 3
Results of HLM analysis of achievement outcomes on ITBS Science

Standard Approximate
Fixed effect Coefficient error T ratio d.f. p value

For INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00 1.79 0.01 64.35 19 0.000
Grade, G01 0.83 0.54 15.28 19 0.000
TREAT, G02a 0.16 0.05 3.04 19 0.007
For Gender, B1
INTRCPT2, G10 0.004 0.02 −0.18 348 0.861
For White vs non-White, B2
INTRCPT2, G20 0.10 0.05 −2.02 348 0.044
For Hispanic vs Black, B3
INTRCPT2, G30 0.09 0.03 −2.93 348 0.004
a
95% confidence interval for ITBS Science GE treatment coefficient is: [+0.05, +0.26]

significant, with Females performing higher than Males, but neither

Ethnicity contrast was significant.
In the findings reported in Tables 3 and 4, each HLM analysis used
raw-score predictor sets in order to use the level 2 regression coefficients
as estimates of the effects of the Treatment and of Grade on ITBS
achievement. As Tables 3 and 4 show, the resulting estimates of the
effects of Treatment in ITBS GE units were +0.16 GE for science and
+0.58 GE for reading. The estimates obtained for Grade differences

TABLE 4
Results of HLM analysis of achievement outcomes on ITBS reading

Standard Approximate
Fixed effect Coefficient error T ratio d.f. p value

For INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00 2.78 0.10 30.06 19 0.000
Grade, G01 0.77 0.19 4.15 19 0.001
TREAT, G02a 0.58 0.19 3.12 19 0.006
For Gender, B1
INTRCPT2, G10 0.18 0.08 2.15 345 0.032
For White vs non-White, B2
INTRCPT2, G20 0.30 0.18 1.66 345 0.097
For Hispanic vs Black, B3
INTRCPT2, G30 0.08 0.11 0.69 345 0.486
a
95% confidence interval for ITBS reading GE treatment coefficient is: [+0.21, +0.95]
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 467

(between grade 1 and grade 2) were +0.82 GE in science and +0.77 GE in

reading.

DISCUSSION

In interpreting the findings, it is important to note that expansion of the

treatment in the present study from 8 weeks (Vitale & Romance, 2007b)
to a full school year demonstrated the impact of the intervention on
student achievement in science and reading comprehension across both
grade levels in a manner consistent with findings of previous research
with students in grades 3 – 8 (Romance & Vitale, 1992, 2001, 2011).
Consistent with prior research on the Science IDEAS model in grades
3 – 5, the present findings resulting from the adapted Science IDEAS
model in grades 1 – 2 are supportive of the feasibility and effectiveness of
in-depth, content-area learning across grades 1 – 5 to accelerate student
achievement in both science and reading comprehension. By obtaining
this dual achievement outcome, the impact of age-appropriate, in-depth
integrated science instruction on reading comprehension justifies the
increased time allocated for daily science instruction.
Implications of this year-long study extend well beyond the “proof of
concept” findings of the previous 8-week study (Vitale & Romance,
2007b) by demonstrating both the feasibility and effectiveness of the
integrated 45 minute per day model, in contrast to literature reviewed by
Koch & Appleton (2007). In combination with findings reported by
Romance & Vitale (1992, 2001, 2011) in grades 3 – 5 and literature
emphasizing the importance of science at the primary level (e.g. Duke,
2010; Pearson et al., 2010), the present findings are supportive of a
revised curriculum policy perspective in grades 1 – 5 (see Vitale &
Romance, 2010; Vitale, Romance & Klentschy, 2006) that would
advocate greater amounts instructional time being allocated to content-
area instruction in science that involves cumulative conceptual learning
(Armbruster & Osborn, 2001; Guthrie & Ozgungor, 2002; Guthrie et al.,
2004; Klentschy & Molina-De La Torre, 2004).
A major emphasis in the present grade 1 – 2 intervention was that science
knowledge provided a meaningful context through which students at the
primary levels were able to experience cumulative learning in an age-
appropriate, meaningful fashion that enhanced their capacity for reading
comprehension. In this regard, the present findings in conjunction with
research cited previously (Armga et al., 2002; Colker, 2002; French, 2004;
Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; Gould et al., 2003; Jones & Courtney, 2002;
468 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

Lee et al., 2000; Smith, 2001; Tytler & Peterson, 2001) are consistent with the
argument advanced by Vitale & Romance (2007a) that considered reading
comprehension as a subset of comprehension in general (for a related, view
see Shanahan, 2010; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
The present findings add support to the perspective that focusing on the
development of meaningful knowledge in science provides the means for
enhancing student reading comprehension and an instructional setting for
the integration of language and literacy-related activities that further
support science learning. This is consistent with emerging literacy trends
that emphasize the use of informational text at the primary levels (e.g.
Duke, 2010; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Gould et al., 2003; Holliday, 2004;
Klentschy & Molina-De La Torre, 2004; Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002;
Palmer & Stewart, 2003; Pearson & Duke, 2002).
Overall, the findings of the present study provide support for adopting
a general curriculum policy at the grade 1 – 5 levels (see Vitale &
Romance, 2010; Vitale et al., 2006) that would allocate greater amounts
instructional time to content-area learning in science that involves
meaningful cumulative learning rather than to the excessive amounts of
instructional time focused on use of non-content basal/narrative reading
programs presently popular in schools (Cervetti et al., 2006). In providing
implications directly relevant to preparing grades 1 – 2 students to be
successful in grade 3 and beyond, the study also advanced forms of
knowledge that bridge research and practice by applying a broad set of
interdisciplinary research findings to the systemic issue of both science
and reading comprehension in education reform. In this regard, the
interdependence of the meaningful learning of science and the develop-
ment of reading comprehension proficiency at the primary level are
important issues that further research should address (see Krajcik &
Sutherland, 2010; Romance & Vitale, in press; Van den Broek, 2010;
Vitale & Romance, 2006; Webb, 2010; Yore et al., 2004).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported here was supported by the National Science

Foundation through Grant REC 0228353 to Florida Atlantic University.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994). Benchmarks for
science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 469

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (1997). Making standards matter 1997. An

annual fifty state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: AFT.
Armbruster, B. B. & Osborn, J. H. (2001). Reading instruction and assessment:
Understanding IRA standards. New York: Wiley.
Armga, C., Dillon, S., Jamsek, M., Morgan, E. L., Peyton, D. & Speranza, H. (2002). Tips
for helping children do science. Texas Child Care, 26(3), 2–7.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta
Kappan, 76, 616–622.
Block, C. C. & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based
best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A. & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in
the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentschy & K. Worth (Eds.),
Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
Colker, L. J. (2002). Teaching and learning about science. Young Children, 57(5), 10–11.
47.
Conezio, K. & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on
children’s fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy
development. Young Children, 57(5), 12–18.
Donahue, P. L., Voekl, K. E., Campbell, J. R. & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 Reading
Report Card for the States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
Duke, N. K. (2010). The real world reading and writing U.S. children need. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(5), 68–71.
Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S. & Roberts, E. M. (2003). Filling the nonfiction
void. American Educator, 27(1), 30–35.
Duke, N. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say
about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school:
Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Feldman, S. (2000). Standards are working: But states and districts need to make some
mid-course corrections. American Educator, 24(3), 5–7.
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood
curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.
Gelman, R. & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.
Gould, C. J., Weeks, V. & Evans, S. (2003). Science starts early. Gifted Child Today
Magazine, 26, 38–43.
Guthrie, J. T. & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C.
C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best
practices (pp. 275–288). New York: The Guilford Press.
470 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A. & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading

comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 59(2), 21–25.
Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the
world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and stagnant reading comprehension.
American Educator, 27(1), 10–29.
Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit. New York: Houghton Miffin.
Holliday, W. G. (2004). Choosing science textbooks: Connecting science research to
common sense. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction
(pp. 383–394). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and NSTA Press.
Jones, J. & Courtney, R. (2002). Documenting early science learning. Young Children, 57
(5), 34–38. 40.
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T. & Davis, M. (1999).
The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81, 199–203.
Klentschy, M. P. & Molina-De La Torre, E. (2004). Students’ science notebooks and the
inquiry process. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science
instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 340–354). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Koch, J. & Appleton, K. (2007). The effect of a mentoring model for elementary science
professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 209–231.
Krajcik, J. S. & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in
science. Science, 328, 456–459.
Lee, M., Lostoski, M. & Williams, K. (2000). Diving into a schoolwide science theme.
Science and Children, 38(1), 31–35.
Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J. & Kennedy, A. M. (2003). PIRLS 2001
international report: IEA’s study of reading literacy achievement in primary school in
35 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I., Martin, M. O. & Kennedy, A. M. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report:
IEA’s progress in international reading literacy study in primary school in 40
countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). The nation’s report card: Science
highlights 2000 (NCES 2002-452). Washington, DC: US Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2010). The nation’s report card: Trial
urban district assessment reading 2009 (NCES 2010-459). Washington, DC: Institute of
Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ogle, D. & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students
comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension
instruction (pp. 247–258). NY: Guilford Press.
Palincsar, A. S. & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand
investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and
 ACCELERATING SCIENCE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT IN GRADES 1 – 2 471

reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of

progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palmer, R. G. & Stewart, R. (2003). Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades. The
Reading Teacher, 57, 38–48.
Pearson, P. D. & Duke, N. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C.
C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 247–258). New York:
Guilford Press.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service
of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
Pressley, M., Rankin, J. & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of
primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School
Journal, 96, 363–384.
Pretti-Frontczak, K. L., Barr, D. M., Macy, M. & Carter, A. (2003). Research and
resources related to activity-based intervention, embedded learning opportunities, and
routines-based instruction: An annotated bibliography. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 23(1), 29–39.
Rakow, S. J. & Bell, M. J. (1998). Science and young children: The message from the
National Science Education Standards. Childhood Education, 74(3), 164–167.
Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-
depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects
of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6),
545–554.
Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Evolution of a model for teaching in-depth
science in elementary schools: Longitudinal findings and research implications.
International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373–404.
Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2011). A research-based instructional model for
integrating meaningful learning in elementary science and reading comprehension:
Implications for policy and practice. In N. L. Stein & S. W. Raudenbush (Eds.),
Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 127–142). New York: Routledge.
Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (in press). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science
and literacy in grades K–5: Implications for policy and practice. In B. J. Fraser, K.
Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M. & Houang, R. T. (1999).
Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and
science education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L.
S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shanahan, T. (2010). The death of content area reading: Disciplinary literacy. Paper
presented at the 12th Annual Education Literacy Symposium, University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL.
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
Smith, A. (2001). Early childhood—a wonderful time for science learning. Investigating:
Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17(2), 18–21.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
472 MICHAEL R. VITALE AND NANCY R. ROMANCE

Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2001). Deconstructing learning in science—young children’s

responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30
(4), 339–355.
Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and
knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2006). Research in science education: An
interdisciplinary perspective. In J. Rhoton & P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the
21st century (pp. 329–351). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2007a). A knowledge-based framework for unifying
content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D.
McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and
technologies (pp. 75–103). New York: Erlbaum.
Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2007b). Adaptation of a knowledge-based instructional
intervention to accelerate student learning in science and early literacy in grades 1–2.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2010). Toward a curricular policy for advancing school
reform by integrating reading comprehension within time-expanded science instruction
in grades K-5. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R. & Klentschy, M. (2006). Improving school reform by
changing curriculum policy toward content-area instruction in elementary schools: A
research-based model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Walsh, K. (2003). Basal readers: The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels
comprehension. American Educator, 27, 24–27.
Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and
developing world. Science, 328, 448–450.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J., Treagust, D. F. &
Wallace, C. (2004). New directions in language and science education research.
Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.

Michael R. Vitale
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC, 27858, USA
E-mail: vitalem@ecu.edu

Nancy R. Romance
Department of Teaching and Learning
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA
E-mail: romance@fau.edu
Copyright of International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education is the property of Springer Science &
Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.